• About

Kathy Stoddard Torrey

~ Leadership Coach and Trainer

Kathy Stoddard Torrey

Monthly Archives: February 2018

Psychological Safety: You first!

27 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#LeadershipRules, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, #YouFirst, relationships

psych safety you first 550 px

I’ve noticed a trend as I’ve been talking with people about psychological safety, trust, and Negative Sentiment Override (NSO). Overwhelmingly, the first thing people ask me is “How can I get someone to realize that they are negative?” Hmmm. They don’t realize it, but that’s a loaded question.

First, it’s important to remember that each of us can only change one person, and that is ourselves. We cannot force other people to change their behavior. I mean, let’s think about it. How would any of us react if someone walked up and said that we were negative and needed to change? If you immediately thought, “Oh, I wouldn’t mind. I might be negative sometimes,” you probably aren’t negative. If you immediately thought, “Well, I’m not the one that needs to change here,” chances are pretty good that you are in NSO. At the very least, you are not seeing the other person as someone with needs, dreams, rights, and ideas that are equally important as your own.

We must start with ourselves. The question we need to ask is, “How can I invite the behavior that I want to see in others?” We can’t force another person to behave better, but we can influence others’ behavior by our own.

For example, let’s say that I have a significant other who comes home late all the time, and it really annoys me. I mean, I manage to get home on time! I’ve talked with my significant other about it and told him that it really bugs me when he doesn’t get home when he says he is going to be there. He says that he understands my irritation and will try to do better.

The next day he gets home 10 minutes later than he planned. I am angry, AND I have choices. I could yell and berate him for being 10 minutes late. What behavior am I inviting from him with that action? Am I creating motivation for him to come home on time – or at all? OR I could greet him at the door with a smile and say that I appreciate his effort and that he was only 10 minutes late. What behavior am I inviting from him then?

So before you go all outraged on gender stereotypes here and ask why I, or you, should have to pander to a significant other who is late, let’s look at this from a leadership perspective. As a leader, I want certain behaviors from my employees that will guarantee their success and mine. It’s important that they finish projects on time and work with a professional attitude. If someone is late turning in a project, I have choices.

I could yell, or at the very least make him or her feel really bad about the lateness. What are the effects of that? Am I creating more positivity in our relationship or less? Am I motivating the person to do better? Maybe, in the sense that they don’t ever want to go through the experience of being shamed again, but that’s a negative motivation that usually results in the person looking for another job. Remember that for the most part, people quit their bosses, not their jobs.

So, as the leader, I need to pause and consider the outcome that I want from our conversation. The first thing that an exceptional leader always wants to do is enhance or maintain the relationship. I don’t want to damage the relationship if I can help it.

Does that mean that I just let everyone slide and break the rules? Not at all! However, it does mean that I don’t get to yell, berate, or shame anyone. It means I see everyone as a person with needs, dreams, and obligations equal to my own. This concept is explained with a story in the book Leadership and Self-Deception.

First, I want to get curious and ask what’s going on. (Honestly, if the project is more than a day late, I should have been checking on it already and asking what was going on.) I want to know what caused the lateness, but not from a blaming perspective. I need to know what happened, so I can work with the employee to make sure it doesn’t happen again. I want to ask how I can help in the future and what the employee can do to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

The outcome I want is for the employee not to be late with a project again AND to maintain a positive relationship. If lateness is a chronic problem, we have a coaching issue that we need to focus on, but when someone is trying, it’s a leader’s job to provide support and remove obstacles, not humiliate.

So, the first question to ask ourselves is, “Am I acting in a way that invites others to produce the outcome that I desire?” If you still call that pandering, you are missing the point of great leadership. It’s our job to bring out the best in others, and we don’t do that with anger, shaming, and humiliation. We do it with curiosity, compassion, and respectful enforcement of necessary rules.

The bottom line is that we see people as people and treat them as we would like to be treated if we made a mistake.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: Positive and Negative Sentiment Override

20 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#Google, #NegativeSentimentOverride, #PositiveSentimentOverride, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, #trust, relationships

psych safety PSO NSO 550 px

The next concept that I want to talk about has a lot to do with trust – and it’s complicated. Ideas and possibilities have been running around in my head all week, and I’ve had several interesting discussions. I find that when my brain is a jumble, it’s best to start with awareness – what do I know for sure? This blog is a definition of Positive Sentiment Override (PSO) and Negative Sentiment Override (NSO).

I first read about the concepts in What Makes Love Last? by John Gottman and Nan Silver. NSO is a real problem in relationships. Gottman and Silver state, “people tend to construe neutral and even positive events as negative.” We cannot achieve psychological safety and trust when we are experiencing NSO.

Research shows that people who suffer from NSO do not recognize 50% of their partners’ positive gestures. That’s huge! If I am in a state of NSO towards you, I completely miss 50% of the nice things that you do!

Robert Weiss defined NSO and PSO in 1980. How have I missed these concepts for so long? Here is a definition of the two states from Gottman’s The Science of Trust:

NSO: The negative sentiments we have about the relationship and our partner override anything positive our partner might do. We are hypervigilant for putdowns. We tend not to notice positive events. We also tend to see neutral, or sometimes even positive, things as negative. WE ARE OVERLY SENSITIVE.

PSO: The positive sentiments we have about the relationship and our partner override negative things our partner might do. We see negativity as evidence that our partner is stressed. We may notice negative events, but we don’t take them very seriously. We tend to distort toward positive and see even negative as neutral. WE ARE NOT OVERLY SENSITIVE AND DO NOT TAKE NEGATIVITY PERSONALLY.

The capitalization is mine.

I want to add a couple of more ideas for us to stir into the mix and consider. Psychologist Fritz Heider discovered that we have a tendency to minimize our own errors and to attribute them to current circumstances. We also emphasize the errors of others and attribute them to negative traits and character flaws. The book Leadership and Self-Deception describes this phenomenon well and is worth a read.

Finally, here is short description of the Overconfidence Effect. It says that the more certain you are of something, the more likely it is that you are wrong. The Overconfidence Effect happens most often when we don’t see all the various perspectives of a situation. It comes from a lack of empathy and an inability to see the big picture.

I included descriptions of Heider’s fundamental attribution errors and the Overconfidence Effect because of several discussions that I’ve had about PSO and NSO. In my workshops and in one-to-one conversations, people often tell me that they know they are right about a person or a situation. They are absolutely convinced about the inherent wrongness and negativity of another person.

For now, let’s step back and take a more neutral view of people we feel animosity towards. The best example I found comes from What Makes Love Last?:

Nathaniel’s wife says, “Oh look. The lightbulb blew out again.” If he’s in the throes of NSO, Nathaniel’s inner dialogue will sound something like: Who died and made me the Official Lightbulb Changer? She can fix it herself! By contrast, if hurt and suspicion are not tainting his thoughts, Nathaniel is likely to assume that his wife’s words meant that, well, the lightbulb blew out.

I love that story! Wouldn’t it be great if we could take everyone’s statements at face value and not add our own emotional agendas to them?

I am going to make an effort to take everyone’s statements to mean, well, exactly whatever they said – and not attach my own emotional charge. That perspective sounds wonderful because it saves me emotional pennies and makes my heart lighter.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: Zero-Sum Game Mindset and Trust

13 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#Google, #LeadershipRules, #LeadYourselfFirst, #ProjectAristotle, #psychologicalsafety, #zerosumgame, relationships

psych safety zero-sum game 550 px

In the analysis of psychological safety, we’ve discussed the importance of creating a foundation of trust, but it was a superficial discussion based on personal experience. I wanted to find some research on trust, and the first person I turn to when I want research-based recommendations is Dr. John Gottman. Gottman is known for his work on marriage and relationship analysis through direct scientific observations.

He offers up a lot of good information on trust, but the first concept that I want to discuss is zero-sum game theory. In game theory, an underlying assumption is that we are all rational and want to maximize our own gains. In a zero-sum game, everyone wants to get the biggest payoff for themselves and also wants their opponents to get as little as possible. In a zero-sum contest, I’m happy if you get nothing!

I have worked with leaders who have a zero-sum game mindset. They want power, money, and promotions. They also don’t want anyone else to get these things. These leaders are nightmares to work with. Sometimes they experience success, but it’s at the expense of their organizations and everyone who works with them.

It’s key to understand that someone who lives in a zero-sum game mindset tries to win while getting you to lose AND believes that you are doing the same thing. This was a bit of a revelation to me. I know people who only look out for themselves, and I accept that about them. I didn’t realize that they believe that I am doing the same. Knowing they expect me to try to take advantage when I can explains a lot of behavior that was a mystery to me before. Of course, this is an accurate description of a negative relationship devoid of trust.

To me, this is an emotionally exhausting scenario. If I am working with someone who is trying to take me down, I am constantly watching my back and documenting every conversation. Neither one of us is focusing on work or organizational goals. We are wasting a lot of time and emotional energy.

In his research, Gottman found that in relationships without trust, partners did not feel joy in each other’s happiness and did not get particularly fussed when the other was upset. As a matter of fact, their emotions were only in sync when they were both in a negative or angry state.

I see professional relationships like this all the time! I am often called in to work with organizations when this scenario of distrust is present because the zero-sum game mindset keeps people from being productive. The team, group, or organization flounders because no one is focusing on organizational goals; they are all focusing on themselves.

Ok, zero-sum gaming is not good and is rife with distrust. Neither person is taking the other’s well-being into consideration. Let’s take a look at what Gottman says a trusting relationship looks like. Here is his definition of trust in What Makes Love Last?:

“Trust is not some vague quality that grows between two people. It is the specific state that exists when you are both willing to change your own behavior to benefit your partner. The more trust that exists in a relationship, the more you look out for each other. You have your beloved’s back, and vice versa. In a trusting relationship you feel pleasure when your partner succeeds and troubled when he or she is upset. You just can’t be happy if achieving your payoffs would hurt your significant other.”

He goes on to say that each partner doesn’t have to put the other’s needs first all the time – that is probably not healthy. However, their happiness is interconnected. Each will change his or her behavior to increase the gains and happiness of the other.

If we look at this from a leadership perspective, we cannot get a person’s best performance when we act from a zero-sum game mindset. To be a successful leader, we must do what we can to improve other people’s happiness and well-being. An exceptional leader helps to create success for the people he or she works with, as well as for the organization. I often use the truism “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” So when an employee or peer is upset, we need to feel some empathy.

In Gottman’s research, he had people watch the video of an argument that they had with their partners. They had a dial in front of them that they used to register the feeling that they had in each moment of the discussion. They turned the dial all the way to the left when they had been experiencing a negative emotion and all the way to the right when they had been feeling a positive emotion.

Gottman categorized the feelings into three boxes: Nasty, Neutral, and Nice. The Nasty box included negative behaviors like anger, criticism, belligerence, bullying, defensiveness, sadness, disappointment, fear, tension, whining, disgust, stonewalling, and contempt. The Nice box included positive emotions and behaviors like interest, amusement, humor, laughter, excitement, joy, validation, and empathy. Any sort of blah reaction in the middle, he put in the Neutral box.

I think the dial and emotion boxes are useful tools for leaders. When an employee is upset, our dial should move to the Negative box to show concern and sadness. We definitely don’t want to move our dial to the Nice box and be gleeful about the employee’s plight. We can check in mentally on where our dial is pointing during conversations to ensure we are acting appropriately.

We can only create positive, trusting relationships if we link our happiness and well-being to the happiness and well-being of others. Our friends, peers, family, and employees must believe that we have their best interests at heart.

Gottman teases out a difference between trust and trustworthiness. He says that trustworthiness indicates a partner’s willingness to sacrifice for the relationship. It means sometimes putting our own needs on the back burner because the partnership matters most.

As leaders, we can’t put the individual needs of everyone in the organization above organizational requirements. Our main goal is the organization’s success. However, that does not mean that we can’t take them into consideration, feel empathy, and make what accommodations that we can.

Gottman goes on to say that it is important to let the other person know that the relationship is unique and irreplaceable. In other words, we want to let the other person know that we value the relationship and that he or she is valuable. How great would the world be if we did that one thing in every relationship that we have?

Research on motivation shows that people respond to appreciation and want to know that what they do makes a difference. When we are trustworthy, we act in a way that increases trust, motivation, commitment, and productivity. We also increase the confidence and well-being of others.

We know from Project Aristotle that the presence of psychological safety helps teams excel. We know that trust and trustworthiness increase a person’s feeling of safety and confidence. We can create success for everyone by avoiding the zero-sum game mindset and truly creating win-win scenarios for everyone, including the organization.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Psychological Safety: Moving Through the Four Stages of Group Development

06 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Kathy Stoddard Torrey in Leadership, Psychological Safety, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#DesignedAlliance, #Forming, #groupnorms, #Norming, #Performing, #psychologicalsafety, #stagesofgroupdevelopment, #Storming

Group development 550 px

When leading a group, it’s useful to know the four stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. When a group first comes together, they are in the Forming stage. It’s a very polite stage when people are beginning to get comfortable with each other.

Storming is the next stage, and it can be a little rough, but it’s necessary. When Storming, the group is testing boundaries and figuring out how each person reacts in certain situations. They are also testing the leader’s abilities and authority.

If the group determines that they can trust one another to be professional and reliable, then they will move to Norming. The group is working together effectively and beginning to put group goals and professionalism above personal considerations in the Norming stage.

Ideally, the group ends up in the Performing stage. At this point, they are a well-oiled machine that accomplishes tasks and goals with ease. The Performing stage is comfortable and fun. The only danger is that if change needs to happen, then the group will resist because they like the way things are!

The group doesn’t go through the stages just one time. They start over each time there is a change in personnel or procedure. However, they will usually move quickly back to the stage that they were in before the change.

Most groups face change all the time. As a result, they are constantly experiencing the group development cycle. The important question is “How can a leader help the group move through the stages as quickly and painlessly as possible?” The answer is psychological safety.

The Storming phase is the most painful and crucial of the four stages. During this stage, the group is testing to see how much psychological safety is present. Can they speak their minds without repercussions? Is it OK to state a different perspective? If they take a risk and fail, what is the result?

Leaders can help a group move smoothly through Storming by ensuring the group feels free to disagree with one another and to take reasonable risks. Is that all? How can a leader accomplish that?

People work together in groups better when they establish a clear set of behavioral guidelines. In systems coaching, we call the guidelines a Designed Alliance. It’s an agreement among all group members about how they want to interact and solve problems. A Designed Alliance can help a group consciously create the culture that they want and ensure psychological safety.

Ground rules created by the leader of the group that are then handed down as mandates are not that effective. The group has not explicitly agreed to abide by those rules. Also, it is then the leader’s responsibility to enforce the rules. The group has little buy-in around rules that they didn’t have a part in creating.

It’s more effective for the group to design an alliance together. The group establishes clear guidelines for acceptable behavior and agrees to follow them. The group members also agree to enforce the rules of the Designed Alliance. It’s especially important for the group to determine how it wants to deal with conflict.

They agree with the rules and abide by them because they helped to create them! Remember that if you use a rule like “Be respectful,” you need to clearly define what that means. Ask questions like, “Are we being respectful when we are on time, or do we need a separate rule for that?” The Designed Alliance can grow and change over time as challenges come up. It helps the group interact in a positive way that helps them focus on results. We know from Google’s Project Aristotle that results can be extraordinary if psychological safety is present.

Here are some questions to get the discussion about behavioral guidelines started:

  • What atmosphere or culture do we want to create?
  • What would help the group flourish?
  • How would an ideal team handle conflict?
  • What will we commit to for one another?
  • What do we need to feel free to express our opinions?
  • How are we going to handle taking risks?

If a group does not experience psychological safety in the Storming phase, then they will move back to a super polite Forming stage forever. The group will not become an effective team.

Creating psychological safety and success is ultimately the responsibility of the leader. Group guidelines for behavior are great and usually effective. However, every now and then there is a bully in the group who refuses to play by the group’s rules. It is then up to the leader to call out the behavior. A leader can never stand by and do nothing when a member of the group disrespects another person.

If the behavior persists, it becomes a private coaching topic for the bully. A leader cannot allow the behavior to continue under any circumstance because the effectiveness and success of the team depend on the psychological safety of the individuals who comprise the team.


For a little bit of fun leadership development, join 53 Leadership Challenges at KathyStoddardTorrey.com.

Want to go further with your professional development? Check out the courses offered at PositiveEffectLeadership.com.

If you are interested in taking your career to the next level quickly, contact me for a sample coaching session at KSTorrey@tapferconsulting.com.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,002 other subscribers
  • RSS - Posts

Categories

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Archives

  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • February 2014
  • January 2014

Powered by WordPress.com.